Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Drakmord wrote:
The mission cards are a really cool idea, but hopefully they add some more interesting ones down the road.

I'd ask for them to not be so random, but...

I like them too, as a quick-and-easy way to add a little something different in matches against usual opponents with whom I've already played 100 by-the-book tourney-style games.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.

And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.

If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well if every psyker that takes a their powers from one discipline gets the primaris and they refered that a model could have 2 in which they normally have one; lets hope for level 1 psykers, there are some level 1 primaris powers they can actually cast lol

With the new 'successes' style psychic phase rules, a Level 1 Psyker could potentially cast a 7 Charge power. (D6+1 dice).

However, I am still wondering how my Slaaneshi Sorceror will fare. If he's Level 1, he has to roll on Slaanesh powers and then gets the Primaris for free. But I'm only allowed half my powers from that discipline. So do I need to split them somehow?

And compare it to the Level 2 Sorceror. He has to roll one Slaanesh power, and then one other. So he CAN'T get the bonus Primaris for either.

This is making me sad, though the idea of fielding all my Sorceror models in an Unbound list and summoning from my Daemons is kind of tempting...

 Yodhrin wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.

And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.

If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.

News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.

The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"

Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.

The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.

What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.

So do we have a confirmed rumor anywhere about snap shot being -2 bs? Because I REALLY want that...

Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

So simple. It required almost no thought.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.

And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.

If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.

News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.

The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"

Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.

Bollocks. For a start, I don't know where you play your games, but nowhere I've ever gamed, save with a picked group of friends who share the same attitude, had anywhere even remotely close to am overwhelming majority who were willing to step outside the "official" rules in anything except the most minor ways. Hell most didn't even begin to approach a plurality. Going to your average club pre-Allies and trying to find a game using a fandex or an army that wasn't selected according to the FoC from within a single codex, you'd be lucky if you got any takers more than once a month, if at all.

As for Allies damaging more than helping; evidence? We've all seen the horror-combos the WAAC types came up with, and I've seen nothing to suggest they are uniquely damaging to 40K. The game long since passed the point where what degree of cheese you utilise actually makes a difference on the tabletop; if you decide to make a list designed to take advantage of every loophole, every undercosted unit or overly-effective ability, there's nothing a more relaxed, fluffy list is going to be able to do about it, whether you're using one codex or four - on the table screamerstars and Taudar are functionally no more broken than wound allocation shenanigans from last edition or MSU-spam parking lots from the one before that, they'll all table a flufflist and they'll all make the game thoroughly dull and unenjoyable for the non-WAAC opponent. It only makes a difference when you're comparing older monodex broken lists against new multidex broken lists.

How many times did you ask?

I play at a club BTW, but evidently not one populated by uptight douches!

As for the evidence, I've submitted my Freedom Of Information request to the Global 40K Commission, when they get back to me with the relevant stats, I'll post them up here.

 azreal13 wrote:
News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.

The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"

Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.

Anecdotal of course but I agree with the previous posters premise that "forging a narrative" was very difficult against people when that narrative involved taking allies in an army when the rules did not allow it. Not to mention the 1000 questions that come up when you want to cast a psycic power, join a unit with an IC, allow other units in your transports, figured out what was able to score and what was not, etc... It was near on impossible to play games this way before 6th. And if you got lucky rolls and beat your opponent badly? well good luck getting another game with the same list it would be instantly frowned upon.

However.. I also understand the WAAC crowd and the abuse/annoyance, most cheese lists were based around abusing that I believe. I would argue that allies themselves did not lead to the abuse but what allying allowed armies to do did. I wonder if the minimization of the Battle Brothers and the change to the allies chart will mitigate the WAAC whilst allowing the fluff though...

List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.

I used to be mad about a lot of netlists I faced...until I realized I was A. playing badly, and B. bringing lists that I thought were cool instead of tactically sound. Do I bring net lists? Nope, but I try to play well to mitigate that power difference and even if I dont win I give it my all and it is always more satisfying to have a well fought loss than an unsatisfying win.

At the last tournament I went to the game was over in the first 2 turns, and they were tabled or gave up by turn 4. It was completely unsatisfying(and that was without a netlist). So for the next tournament I am toning down my list further to try and make it a better game.

I agree wholeheartedly that having a good competition between myself and my foe makes for a fun game.
there is little to no tactics involved with playing a net list like a parking lot of IG. Line up tanks. Roll DIce. WIn game. Spam OP unit. Roll dice. Win game. Find some loop hole in the rules. Abuse loop hole. Win game.
Not for me.
Lots of tournament players use the defense that you have to play a net lists if you want to be competitive. It is true to a significant degree that your list will have a large impact on weather you win or loose, but tactics are not just math hammering out the best unit and only spamming those. I have made it to the top table many times and i NEVER take a cheese list. It diminishes the sensation (for me, not everyone) of winning on the merit of my own ability.

 Lansirill wrote:
The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.

What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.

7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.

It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.

What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.

7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.

It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.

It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes

 azreal13 wrote:
How many times did you ask?

I play at a club BTW, but evidently not one populated by uptight douches!

Well lets see, there was the three years where I was attempting to use the original AdMech fandex, at that point I went to a local club three times a month, and I believe I managed to get less than 10 games with that army, I usually had to dump a chunk of the units and play counts-as Imperial Guard instead. I got a whole four games with my Radical Daemonhunter and Chaos Marines army, that was over the course of a year, and at a different club. Back in uni I tried to persuade many opponents that it would be fun to actually use different rules for each of the subgroupings in my Marines Crusade army, I don't think I got a single taker, they always just ended up being used as a standard C:SM army. My last attempt was at my current club before Allies came in, I attempted to gain traction with an all-cavalry Guard force, a Rough Rider company on xenomounts, that one managed five games, but four of those were against the same bloke, a good mate who no longer lives around here. There were also the many, many "fun" years where anything I bought from Forge World was essentially just extra weight in my gaming bags, since only a handful of people would let you use them.

I don't see these people as "douches", they might be pedantic from my perspective, even lacking in imagination if I was feeling uncharitable, but there's no malice in what they do. I just find the suggestion that such attitudes are so rare as to be irrelevant laughable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

So simple. It required almost no thought.

Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.

The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.

 Sihdhartha wrote:
It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes

So does the way weapon range worked in the 6th ed rulebook before they erratad it - you just measure to the closest model in the enemy unit, and if he is in range, you're in range of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xera32 wrote:
Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.

The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.

All that was needed to remove 5th edition's wound shenanigans was a rule requiring you to apply subsequent wounds to already-wounded models first, with an optional exclusion for ICs joined to the unit.

 azreal13 wrote:
Unbound forces are the new baseline....

Like feth they are!

I literally stopped reading at that point. Anything they write is so out of touch with the reality of what the community wants that it is depressing.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sihdhartha wrote:
It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes

So does the way weapon range worked in the 6th ed rulebook before they erratad it - you just measure to the closest model in the enemy unit, and if he is in range, you're in range of the unit.

I'm not saying it was the least clunky way to resolve this, but this sort of shenanigans is the only thing I can think of at the moment that this rule change would be in place to resolve.

xera32 wrote:
Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1

Except that isn't how it worked. You removed whole models rather than leaving multiple wounded models in a unit. It was really simple.

So if a unit of 10 creatures, each creature with 3 wounds, took 7 wounds (after saves), you'd remove one model and have one model left on 1 wound. If, during the next round, the same unit took another 13 unsaved wounds, the first wound would remove the model that had 1 wound left, and the remaining 12 wounds would remove 4 more models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

“But it only works if it is satisfying for both players”
Yeah like you care, GW. Are 2++ satisfying for both players? Are goddamn flying vehicles and monstrous creature satisfying for both players when even after one full edition, some army still do not have access to any AA weapon, let alone a flyer of their own?

What armies don't have acces to a flyer?

Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.

What? Have you actually tried playing with them?

I'm speaking more in regards to their AA potential. Those silly squid-missiles aren't exactly changing the nature of Tyranid gameplay.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What armies don't have acces to a flyer?

Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.

I'm surprised more people have't been flipping out over Lords of War being in a normal list!

There may be a associated cost but still.

So tournaments now have to specifically say :

No Lords of War
No Unbound Armies
No Formations

etc..

They'll have to do something about the Come the Apocalypse allies as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

Now, I am looking at you with the same face as my avatar.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.

What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.

7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.

It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.

+1 here. I can't understand why GW is making wound allocation more complicated every iteration of the game. Now instead of grabbing a bunch of color coded dice and roll for all my IG squad I'll have to go and make one for the flamer dude, plus the sarge that will have to come first lest he ends out of range with his pistol, then the lasguns and finally the hwt... great way to speed play (and that's without taking into account armor save shenannigans)

M.

Hollismason wrote:
I'm surprised more people have't been flipping out over Lords of War being in a normal list!

There may be a associated cost but still.

So tournaments now have to specifically say :

No Lords of War
No Unbound Armies
No Formations

etc..

They'll have to do something about the Come the Apocalypse allies as well.

They'll have to do something about allies in general because it seems GW is doubling down on the stupid.

Thank you ClockworkZion for uploading those pages from the White Dwarf. Very informative and enlightening.

I have to say that though the tactical cards may not be a bad idea, they do seem to be a bit...ponderous? Added to that the new psychic phase I just see this game becoming positively glacial in its execution. Compounded with all the other mandatory additions/options 40K seems to be stuck firmly in the mud.

Hollismason wrote:
I'm surprised more people have't been flipping out over Lords of War being in a normal list!

Because LoW were already in normal lists. The fact that certain players didn't like this and stubbornly insisted that their "no LoW" house rule was the standard game doesn't change the fact that Escalation put them into the standard game. All 7th edition seems to be doing with LoW is keeping the existing rules, but putting them into the core rulebook so you don't have to buy the Escalation book to have them.